Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hunter v. Berryhill

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

January 22, 2019

DALE JESSE HUNTER, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          BRADLEY MURRAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim for supplemental security income benefits. The parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), for all proceedings in this Court. (Docs. 17 & 18 (“In accordance with provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties in this case consent to have a United States magistrate judge conduct any and all proceedings in this case, . . . order the entry of a final judgment, and conduct all post-judgment proceedings.”)). Upon consideration of the administrative record, Plaintiff's brief, the Commissioner's brief, and the arguments of counsel at the January 10, 2019 hearing before the Court, it is determined that the Commissioner's decision denying benefits should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.[1]

         I. Procedural Background

         Plaintiff, through his mother, filed an application for supplemental security income benefits on April 28, 2015, alleging disability beginning on June 1, 2013. (See Tr. 152-55.) His claim was initially denied on August 26, 2015 (see Tr. 94-100) and, following Plaintiff's written request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) (see Tr. 103-04), a hearing was conducted before an ALJ on November 28, 2016 (Tr. 35-82). On March 20, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision finding that the claimant was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to supplemental security income benefits. (Tr. 10-24.) More specifically, the ALJ went to the fifth step of the five-step sequential evaluation process and determined that Hunter has the residual functional capacity to perform those unskilled jobs identified by the vocational expert (“VE”) during the administrative hearing (compare Tr. 22-23 with Tr. 78-79). On April 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a written request for review of the ALJ's unfavorable decision (Tr. 151) and, on December 20, 2017, the Appeals Council denied Hunter's request for review (Tr. 1-3). Thus, the hearing decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.

         Plaintiff alleges disability due to Asperger's Syndrome. The ALJ made the following relevant findings:

2. The claimant has the following severe impairment: Autism Spectrum Disorder (20 CFR 416.920(c)).
3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
4. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following non-exertional limitations: limited to simple, routine, and repetitive tasks and limited to low stress jobs, defined as only simple decision making required with no interaction with the public and only occasional interaction with co-workers.
5. The claimant has no past relevant work (20 CFR 416.965).
6. The claimant was born on June 20, 1994, and was 20 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the date the application was filed (20 CFR 416.963).
7. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 416.964).
8. Transferability of job skills is not an issue because the claimant does not have past relevant work (20 CFR 416.968).
9. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 416.969 and 416.969(a)).
10. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since March 16, 2015, the date the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.